Patent suit targets Apple, 26 others over wireless transactions

Apple is one of a long list of companies accused of patent infringement in a new lawsuit related to wireless recording of transactions.

The lawsuit from LVL Patent Group LLC accuses Apple and others of violating a total of four patents. While three of them were granted in 2000 and earlier, one invention entitled "Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data Into Databases" was issued earlier this month, on Sept. 13, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Apple finds itself among a long list of 27 companies that have been accused of patent infringement. Other notable companies targeted in the suit are AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Research in Motion, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and Hewlett-Packard.

The lawsuit was filed this month, only two days after the most recent patent was granted by the USPTO. Filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, it includes four total patents:
U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382: "Data Transaction Assembly Server," awarded in 2000.
U.S. Patent No. 5,805,676: "Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data Into Databases," awarded in 1998.
U.S. Patent No. 5,987,103: "Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data Into Databases," awarded in 1999.
U.S. Patent No. 8,019,060: "Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data Into Databases," awarded on Sept. 13, 2011.
Apple and other handset makers are accused of violating the first three patents awarded in 2000 and earlier, while the carriers named as defendants in the suit are also accused of violating the patent awarded earlier this month.

LVL has argued that Apple and other wireless handset manufacturers are violating the three patents "by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing mobile communication devices that include a data transaction assembly server." LVL has said that this alleged infringement has resulted in "monetary damages in an amount not yet determined."

The accuser also believes that each of the wireless carriers targeted in its suit violate the latest granted patent by selling products that obtain "data transaction information entered on a telephone, forming a plurality of exploded data transactions for the single transaction, and sending said different exploded data transactions to different destinations, using its mobile services network platform."

LVL has asked that the court apply a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from selling what it believes are infringing products and services. The patent holder is represented by attorneys Richard. D. Kirk and Stephen. B. Brauerman of Delaware-based law firm Bayard.

Man.. I feel like there is at least one new lawsuit EVERY DAY.
I think now there's a market for "Lawsuits for Dummies".

Are there any statistics on how many companies that go bankrupt after loosing or winning a suit because of the costs involved? Anyone? I've got a hunch it's a pretty darn high risk game, this patent lawsuit business.

Honestly, there is prior artwork on this, i.e. ATM and point of sales CC processing devices, these all have used telephone to interact with a database. Why are they only focusing on the cell phone industry...

oh come on, this talk about using modems, where have these guys been, who uses modems anymore.

These patents talk about using a phone as a terminal interface into some sort of information system. It the process behind an auto attendant, you know when you call your credit card company and they ask you all kinds of information and you press the numbers and it routes you to different information or a different department.

Honestly, there is prior artwork on this, i.e. ATM and point of sales CC processing devices, these all have used telephone to interact with a database. Why are they only focusing on the cell phone industry...

Because the daft idiots see "telecom", think "phones" and therefore go after the phones, despite the patent actually being titled with the word "telecommunications", which covers everything from world wide telephone calls to smoke signals.

The "LINK" system in the United Kingdom is a perfect example of an ATM network, and thats been going since the '85. That technically falls under this patent (the title at least) - you use an ATM or Pay For something in a shop, shop communicates with the bank, activity logged in the database.

It should be illegal to own a business whose sole form of income is to sue people for violating patents.

I would say if there isn't some evidence that you're actually attempting to USE the patent you've created (to make your own product, or at least further a business you're known to be involved in), then your patent should be declared invalid.

What if they created a time limit? Say you make a patent. If the patent doesn't show up in a product of yours within X amount of time, then the patent is released for someone else to use or patent themselves. That would eliminate people who sit on patents for 10 years, who obviously are just squatting hoping to sue someone who uses the patent.

yeah the new patent reform law change the law about being first to apply, they should have also include you can only claim damages if you actually are actively making a product that employes the patent.

It should be illegal to own a business whose sole form of income is to sue people for violating patents.

I would say if there isn't some evidence that you're actually attempting to USE the patent you've created (to make your own product, or at least further a business you're known to be involved in), then your patent should be declared invalid.

What if they created a time limit? Say you make a patent. If the patent doesn't show up in a product of yours within X amount of time, then the patent is released for someone else to use or patent themselves. That would eliminate people who sit on patents for 10 years, who obviously are just squatting hoping to sue someone who uses the patent.

The current patent system actively discourages this. If these inventors tried making a product with their inventions and THEN sued other companies they would quickly be buried in counter-lawsuits because everyone violates patents, so the advantage often goes to the company with the largest war chest (which Apple is one of them) This means that larger companies (Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc) could (and can) "use" any technology they want from smaller inventors with imputy because if that competitor tries suing them, they just counter-sue and force a favorable licensing agreement.

That's where these "patent troll" companies come in. By having the patents in a non-practicing entity, it makes it virtually impossible to counter-sue, meaning that these patents actually stand a chance of gaining some traction. If you're a small time inventor, your only real alternatives in the tech world is to either sell the patent to a larger company (or at least get protection from them) or sell to a "Troll" company and hope to collect some compensation for your work that way. If you try and go it alone, you're screwed.

I'm not defending patent trolls. They're horrible and (no matter their founding purposes) invariably cause greater harm than good. But they are a SYMPTOM of the problem, NOT the disease itself. The Disease is the current patent system, and it needs some massive reform (and not special-interest band-aides like the recent law) to cause any real change. Until that happens, we ALL suffer, no matter what OS we use.

yeah the new patent reform law change the law about being first to apply, they should have also include you can only claim damages if you actually are actively making a product that employes the patent.

That change benefits larger companies, NOT original inventors. It's a step backwards in patent law. As for your second statement, see my response above this one. Non-Practicing entities exist because there is NO other way for independent devs to "protect" their IP